-
Introduction
- ISEAS–Yusof Ishak Institute
- Chapter
- Additional Information
Introduction 3 By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville INTRODUCTION Sree Kumar The history of the member states of ASEAN lends clues to how political systems evolved from the earliest times. The defining feature of such systems of the ancient times was the mobilization of socially definable loyalties for a common purpose rather than specifying a territorial scale of such activities. It can be argued that this approach to understanding Southeast Asian political systems provides an appropriate perspective on how ASEAN’s intra-regional relations have developed. But the ancient boundaries have been supplanted by nation-states created during colonial times. The British occupied Burma, Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, Brunei, and North Borneo; the French in Indo-China; the Philippines had for a long time been first under Spanish, and then under the United States, and the Dutch had their jewel in the East — Indonesia and Western New Guinea. Only Thailand remained insulated from this scramble for Southeast Asia. The Second World War changed this mosaic as the Japanese occupied most of the region and provided the initial seeds of a nationalist sentiment. The end of the war and Japan’s defeat set nationalism aflame in most of Southeast Asia, resulting in the formation of states independent of their colonial masters. In some countries, colonial economic interests prevailing from before the war continued to operate, while in others, nationalization became a major preoccupation. The fear of creeping communism after the war led to the victors seeking to define responses to creating a regional entity. The first of such was the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO) which only had two full members from the region. The second attempt was largely a political act that created the Association of Southeast Asia (ASA) and Maphilindo. These were both stillborn, and in 1967 ASEAN was formed among the five members of the region, with Indonesia playing a lead role. Membership was subsequently enlarged with the entry of Brunei, and the more recent incorporation of Myanmar and the countries of Indochina — Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. Since its inception, ASEAN has been characterized by a loose framework of relationships, formal in nature but not necessarily always binding on member countries. This soft relationship style has allowed a uniquely “ASEAN way” of addressing critical concerns within the region. The underlying principle for this approach is to reach a consensus among member countries, arriving at an agreement at the lowest common denominator. The 1990s saw the strengthening of the ASEAN institutional infrastructure with the profile 001 AR Section I 22/9/03, 11:58 AM 3 4 Sree Kumar By: ROS Size: 7.5" x 10.25" J/No: 03-14474 Fonts: New Baskerville of the Secretary General being raised; having a more structured ASEAN Secretariat; widening the internal ASEAN orbit from the foreign ministers to include other portfolios such as the economic and finance ministers; and the creation of the senior officials network of meetings. Perhaps, more demanding has been the need to extend ASEAN’s external relations as co-operative linkages with the EU, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States, and the UNDP were formed. Similarly, relations were established with China, India, and Russia. In 1994, the ASEAN Regional Forum was established to promote political and security dialogue among all the countries in the Asia-Pacific region. Although many of these developments gathered pace in the last decade, the overall process of institution-building in ASEAN has been gradual and adaptive, taking into account national and cultural sensitivities of member countries. Gradualism and adaptation have taken a knock in the wake of the financial crisis in the late 1990s. When the financial crisis enveloped the region it was apparent that a regional response to it was less than satisfactory. The affected member countries had to resort to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) while Malaysia went its own way. It may well be unkind to seek a concerted regional response at a time of deep financial upheaval. But the lessons of the time have now transcended national interests to some extent as a collective surveillance mechanism with the support of the Asian Development Bank has been agreed, with implementation to come on stream later. There is now a greater vigilance on economic volatility following in the slipstream of globalization and the need for more urgent regional responses is becoming paramount. When ASEAN will be tested again is, therefore, the crucial question. There are benefits to applying the...